No plausible Lab or Lib leader would put up DE i think though

The current, very plausible Labor leader is committed by ALP policy to a staged process which is most likely to end in DE being put up. No plausible Labor or Lib leader will put up any non-elective model without also giving voters the DE option after the rejection of a non-elective model last time around. See my comment #29.

The smart minimalist republicans like Glyn Davis, Paul Kelly, George Williams and others including the renovated ARM are all agreed that the only way in which a non-elective model might eventually get up is via a process in which the DE option is seriously considered, and tried and (maybe, but maybe not) found wanting, after which attention could return to some non-elective model. Of course such a process carries with it the probability that the DE option won’t be found wanting and will be carried at referendum, and this scares the daylights out of stubborn minimalists like Greg Craven and Peter Botsman, who would prefer to see the whole movement to a republic gridlocked rather than let through the DE option.

No plausible Lab or Lib leader would put up DE i think though

How is that practical? Why does it have to be ratified? Why does a state need a head? Sir Henry is right and tragically ignored….Apart from Spain and Cambodia, all post-monarchical republics have led to national maturity.

Well these are very existencial questions. And I’ve asked them myself. Not only why do have to have a head of state, but why the state itself? The answer to the latter question is because it’s necessary to keep us monkeys sorted when there’s heaps of us. The answer to the former is that we’re a hierarchical species and haven’t worked out how not to be. >
My objection is not to Republicanism. I am a republican and believe this country will inevitably becaome a republic. However I believe the conservatives have a point here and that it should be understood and considered by the those who seek change to ensure that that change makes for a better state.
>
You argue that Spain and Cambodia are the only post-monarchical societies that haven’t matured. What does that mean - mature. And exactly why do you say that? Why Spain and Cambodia? Was the Soviet Union more mature than the Tsarist state? It was certainly a more efficient killer. Was life better under Robbespierre than Louis the 16th? Conversely did Rome become less mature after Octavian Augustus consolidated the Principate, did the abondonment of tribal consensus for Pharonic rule in Egypt involve an infantile regression?
>
Enough with the metaphors. Come up with a practical, everyday reasons for the Republic or at the very least design a system that retains the safeguards of the monarchy and avoids the imperial excesses of the American presidency.
>
Or as Radiohead would say: Hey Man, Slow Down, Slow Down.

He’s on a stretcher being carted out of the arena - still swinging a folding chair at the paramedics from time to time, naturally.

Well Jack, you’ve just been arguing the value of the Royal Family as a tradition-laden ceremonial way of publicly endorsing key Commonwealth cultural milestones. Now a private ceremony is suddenly all the go?

I am sure that the Royal Family can publicy chew gum and privately talk at the same time. At any rate they are the experts on ceremony so who are we to question them?

Nabakov says:

And really “Buckers�? Next thing you’ll be mentioning “Ken Place�. Times like this Gino, you embarrassingly reveal what a noouve you are.

Sorry, did not have my second person irony alerts turned up to full blast. In future I will make an effort to telegraph my little jokes well ahead, just so the slow learners dont fall too far behind.

(Incidentally, if you want to use my nickname instead of my real name perhaps you would not mind if I used your real name instead of your nickname. Or would that get you in trouble with your superiors, perhaps downgrading you to a Petty Panjandrum.)

Obviously, our constitution does not adequately specify the powers of the Crown, or there’d be no debate on “reserve powers�.

YOu could never specify a legal clause well enough to satisfy most constitutional lawyers. They are worlds best practice nit-pickers. Thats why we rely on traditional conventions. (cf “Rationalism in politics” Oakshott)

Our constitution does a better job of literally specifying the powers of the Crown than the British constitution, which is unwritten. The constitutional tinkerings and fiddlings of Gordon Brown do not provide you with a good point of comparison.

Mark says:

Err, um, the US Constitution specifically gives Congress, not the President, the power to make war.

Err, um, the US Constitution gives the President, not the Congress, the job of Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Looking at US military history over the past generation does not give one much confidence in the congressional legislative power to arrest an presidential executive bent on war.

The AUS constitution as it stands would likewise grant to our HoS, whether he be Governor General or President, the power of CinC armed forces. But a popularly elected president would have this power at his disposal, with much less parliamentary check, given popular mandate and his own executive branch.

He would not have to get the numbers in Cabinet, nor would he have to stand up in parliament, or the press for that matter, and justify his military disposal. A licence for mischief making.

This is just one of the many unpleasant discoveries about unintended consequences once one investigates the republican “models” (ie childrens toy).

And again, I pose the question: what practical (as opposed to symbolic) benefit would a change in the identity of the ceremonial HoS bring to the running of the AUS state? (Stony silence for about 900 years.)

Jack, would you mind describing what it’s like to be “snubbed by the lordy types�

Sure. Not really a snub, more a chance off hand remark. Happened long ago at a party in Knightsbridge where the host (somewhat toffy young lady) expressed dismay at the idea of living in Australia for the term of your natural life.

The minor pang was well worth it. I laughed it off later with my girlfriend, more importantly I learnt something.

It was a gestalt moment which gave me empathy with all those expat and repats who made the long trek to the Old Dart in the sixties and seventies, only to find themselves with their noses forever pressed up against the glass walls dividing them from the warm, inviting salons that they had dreamt of in their well-spent youth. Alas it was not to be.

The core of the leadership of the republican movement is haunted by a nagging sense of status-insecurity in regards to their British betters. (For the republicans are mostly a movement of leaders, the masses are only vaguely interested in playing with their “models”.) Australian elites trying to shrug off the feeling that they could get entre, but not acceptance, into the society of British elites, epitomised by the Royal Family.

That has given them a big chip on their shoulder, especially the lawyers who must feel it all the more keenly, rubbing shoulders with the high and mighty at the London Inns of Court. Look at Turnbull’s eternal vendetta against the British political class. Or Robertson - more English than the English - carrying on like a well-heeled Jacobin.

So naturally when they returned to AUS the just had to take out their frustrations and rage against the British ruling class by tearing down the constitutional house that “the lordy types” built. So much more satisfying, and so much easier, than the ball-busting job of workable social reform (”the slow boring of hard boards” Weber).

(I exclude Gough from this. No one ever gave him a sense of social inferiority.)

Enemy Combatant says:

Why is it better for a bloke of this great southern land to not be stiffed by toffy royalists in front of his mates, Jack; why is it better to cop it sweet “over there�?

No doubt we can all dream of a society where no man is master of another. But that place does not lie on this side of the vale of tears.

One way or another one lot of political elites will lord it over us. I happen to prefer UK political elites to AUS ones for the top ceremonial job.

Time heals all wounds and absence makes the heart grow fonder. The UK is a long way a way. And I dont have to deal with toffs day in day out. Better the devil I don’t know.

Well Jack, you’ve just been arguing the value of the Royal Family as a tradition-laden ceremonial way of publicly endorsing key Commonwealth cultural milestones. Now a private ceremony is suddenly all the go? Personally I reckon they should have sent at least one of the two party-hearty army Princes out for the dedication of the Hilary-Norgay Airport. Both Will or Hank would have enjoyed the jaunt and the Gurkhas would have loved it enough to be screwed over again by HMG.

And really “Buckers”? Next thing you’ll be mentioning “Ken Place”. Times like this Gino, you embarrassingly reveal what a noouve you are.

If we want a Head of State separate from a Head of Government for purely ceremonial reasons, well then drawn up a good deal memo and find a generally mutually acceptable way of picking one. Who said GG Idol? Not me.

If we want a Head of State with reserve powers to override a democratically elected government in a pinch, then it’s not really a democratically elected government is it?

If we want a Head of State that reinforces and renews our linkages with what the UK and Commonwealth means now, then whack the ostrich feathers, cultery and tin on Prince Harry and give him the swipe card to a nice Point Piper penthouse. He looks a likely lad. His dad certainly was, cuckolding Prince Charles. Us bastards do deserve a right bastard don’t we?

Personally I think this is a fun but not important issue. T’would be nice to be a republic but it would suck up the kind of national consensus and energy we could better devote to more pressing issues now like mouth cancer among Tasmanian Devils.

Speaking of mouth cancer I just wanna blurt something out. Where is it carved in stone that our Head of State has to be a primate instead of a marsupial?

“Please bear with us Madame President. The Governor-General will be with you shortly once he returns from the creek at the bottom of the viceregal garden with probably a couple of worms in his bill. Try not to stare.”

However there are arguments - practical ones - for maintaining the monarchy. The monarchy does not make policy, in fact it’s only function appears to be the ratification of a governor-general recommended by parliament. Hence in de facto terms we are a republic.

How is that practical? Why does it have to be ratified? Why does a state need a head? Sir Henry is right and tragically ignored.

because, let’s face it, the constitution’s not that bad

Apart from the fact that federalism is completely buggered, Ron.

how mature is a nation that jettisons a functioning system for a half-baked one in the name of maturing as a nation?

Apart from Spain and Cambodia, all post-monarchical republics have led to national maturity. The very process of working out these things for ourselves, rather than pretending that the Windsors act on our behalf, is what it means to be nationally mature.

In a current political climate where MASSIVE life and death issues are FAR from being resolved in a sensible manner (for example, NATO has just announced that it will carry out preemptive nuclear strikes in order to stop other countries getting nuclear weapons, McCain wants to occupy Iraq for 100 years, Hillary wants to bomb Iran, Obama will attack Pakistan, plus the US government has destroyed the world economy, again…it just doesn’t stop!), the simple fact is that republicanism in Australia is on the same level of importance as whether the Texas legislature should fly the Confederate Flag.

See? Steve is saying we should all be passive and wait for other people to allow us some space so that we can discuss it, rather than taking the initiative ourselves. And before anyone accuses me of “not getting it”, can I say that I’m doing as much as Steve is about influencing Obama on Pakistan, given my knowledge of Pakistan and access to Obama.

… in the absence of the real thing.

That’s just it, Jack. This absence should be the exception, not the norm.

The Hilary family has been invited to Buckers for a private memorial ceremony. A pretty fair deal for those closest to the man.

Only if you regard them as serfs who should be bloody grateful for anything they get, rather than relatives of a man deserving of wider respect. The Hillarys are welcome at my place too. When you recoil at the previous sentence, you’ll finally get it.

there are advantages to the current set-up

No there aren’t, it’s just inertia.

We don’t have to have Charles Treetalker if we don’t want to. If the British Parliament could choose William of Orange over James 2 and Charles 3, surely our Parliament could choose anyone we like without deviating from the existing model.